publish_draft

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses the mandatory confirmation flag, the rejection of ambiguous title matches, the restriction to exactly one draft when title is empty, the difficulty of undoing publication, and the visibility default behavior. These are meaningful behavioral traits beyond just 'publishes a draft'.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded, leading with the primary action and the mandatory confirm flag. Every subsequent sentence adds essential edge-case or parameter context without redundancy or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity and the absence of annotations, the description covers all three parameters, the confirmation requirement, ambiguity handling, irreversibility, and default visibility. Since an output schema exists, return-value documentation is not the description's burden; nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must supply all parameter meaning. It fully explains title matching semantics, the confirm requirement, and the allowed visibility values and their default behavior. This more than compensates for the empty schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's core action: loading a saved draft and publishing it. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_draft, list_drafts, and delete_draft by focusing on the publish workflow, and adds the critical precondition that confirm=True is required.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives strong usage context: drafts are not auto-restored, so the user must explicitly select one from a list first. It also explains the conditions under which publication will proceed (unique title match, or exactly one draft when title is empty). However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives, leaving some routing implicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.